Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-09-11

Commissioner asserted that Mr. Brown
ing's motive was to hamper the opera
tons CT the Few law, which he had IN
successfully lsbored ID mar, mu.ilste
aud defeat" while il was under con-
sideraMon in the Legislature. He
stated that universal demand to
purchase wherever public lands are
situated necessitates the classic cation OF
them all, which Will DE done TO the extent
that the appropriation made by the Leg
lslature will permit, and thst in the mean
time leases were being made subject &c
classification and the provision in the law
making leased agricultural lands subjec;
to sale to actual settlers. The Commits
sioner intimsted that the administration
had decided not to enforce section Is Of
the law, which was intended to force the
removal of the fences illegally erected
around the school lands, because of the
belief thst It would "ruthlessly destroy
the csttle Interests of Texas"
In his reioinder Mr.. Browning goes &c
the record for a vindicstion OF his course
in the Legislature. He shows that hi.
humiliation" OF the bill consisted in the
offer of three amendments, escl Of whict
WAS incorporated into the law. One O.
these is the clause, the meaning of which
is 1ow in controversy, subjecting LEASED
agricultural lands to purchase by actua
settlers. This important feature, withou
which leased lands would be Indefinitely
tied up from settlement, Mr.. Browning
declares was omitted from the Senat,
bill which the Land COMMISSIONS
championed, and when introduced was bit
terly antagonlZ3 I'd by the friends Of the Sen
ate bill and the csttleme1, who came nea
defeating it. This is interesting history
and in view Of the agitation of the Egri
cultural interests in the west produced
by the lease of the lands before classif
cation, suggests the question Whs
would have been the effect Of the adop
ton Of the Senate bill without this re
deeming clause?
Another question Of hardly less inpor
tarce than the promiscuous leasing of tn,
LANDS, without regard to the demand tha
may exist for their purchase by ac!us
settlers. is involved IN the seeming dtspo
sition Of the state to ignore section IS @
the law which makes it highly pena
dor any persoa to fence, use, occup,
or appropriate" any of the public land
without authority from the state. II i
be true, as the Commissioner states, tina
the enforcement OF the penalties provide,
by this section would be "simrl,
ruinous" to the cattle interests the pu0.
lie would be little disposed to criticiss
It's practical repeal by the executive
powers. Mr.. Browning denies that sucl
q result would follow its enforcement.
and asserts that the purpose Of the Legis
Iature was to force q removal CT il.ees
fences, whose existence was well know
to the Legislature. lie declares that If
ZIG iAdiilclS VI llC D-il'AGlt GhOH gu Z uS-
sign TO project these trespassers, the BIZ
could not have been passed in any shape
These are, in substance, the points q
difference between Mr.. Browning ant
the Commissioner. The two great ques-
ttons Involved are: First, whether al
school lands shall be leased, or should
under the law, those in demand for set
tlement be reserved from lease? Second
should the state force the removal of the
Illegal fences erected upon the school
lands?
The final disposition OF these questions
BY the administration will have g mos,
important bearing upon the settlement OF
the west, and determine the extent tc
which individuals and corporations car
appropriate and monopolize public lands